Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean choice or conflict and law?

Your query (choice or conflict) and law returned 158 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI [Syllabus] California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
	EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH [Syllabus]
	SEMTEK INT’L INC. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Is this Court's holding in Dupasseur-- that the resjudicata effect of the judgment of a federal court sitting in diversity ""is such as would belong to judgments of the State courts rendered under similar circumstances,"" and that ""no higher sanctity or effect can be claimed,"" 88 U. S. at 135-- still good law? 2. If Dupasseur is overruled or modified by this Court, what should be the res judicata effect of a statute of limitations dismissal in a federal court diversity suit?"
	RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. V. MORAN [Syllabus] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not preempt §4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act-which provides recipients of health coverage by an HMO with a right to independent medical review of certain benefit denials-as applied to health benefits provided by an HMO under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan.
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	VOINOVICH V. QUILTER, 507 U.S. 146 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BRANCH V. SMITH [Syllabus] The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
	COLUMBUS V. OURS GARAGE & WRECKERSERVICE, INC. [Syllabus] 49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(2)(A)-which excepts "the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles" from §14501(c)(1)'s general rule preempting prescriptions by "a State [or] political subdivision of a State . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property"-does not bar a State from delegating to municipalities and other local units the State's authority to establish safety regulations governing motor carriers of property, including tow trucks.
	ATHERTON V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 519 U.S. 213 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. [Syllabus] 1. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with five state courts of last resort, that an automobile manufacturer's compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard that permits, but does not require, installation of airbags in passenger vehicles preempts state common law claims that an automobile was defectively designed because it lacked an airbag? 2. Whether the D.C. Circuit erred by holding that, because this Court engaged in implied preemption analysis in Freightliner Corp. V. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995), the lower courts are free to disregard the limitations on implied preemption most recently emphasized in Cipollone V. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), to find that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1431, impliedly preempts common law claims, even thought the Act expressly provides that ""compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard … does not exempt any person from any liability under common law''?
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	BEECHAM V. UNITED STATES, 114 S. CT. 1669, 114 S. CT. 1669 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, 505 U.S. 504 (1992). [Syllabus]
	JAMES M. BEAM DISTILLING CO. V. GEORGIA, 501 U.S. 529 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MFRS. OFAMERICA V. WALSH [Syllabus] 1. Whether the federal Medicaid statue, 42 U. S. C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations? 2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out of state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells it products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?
	LEWIS V. LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Does the district court abuse its discretion by dissolving the injuction against state court proceeding in a single claimant limitation of liability case (46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.) when the claimant guarantees the vessel owner's right to limitation by stipulating that the claim does not exceed the limitation fund; and 2. If so, must the injunction nonetheless be dissolved pursuant to the Saving To Suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. 1333(2)?"
	UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-SALAZAR [Syllabus] Whether a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal of his conviction when he uses a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror whom the district court erroneously failed to remove for cause, and he ultimately exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
	BUCKMAN CO. V. PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL COMM. [Syllabus] Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain devices.
	UNITED STATES V. CRAFT [Syllabus] Michigan law gives a tenant by the entirety individual rights in the estate sufficient to constitute "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach under 26 U. S. C. §6321.
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD. V. TSUI YUAN TSENG [Syllabus]
	O'MELVENY & MYERS V. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CROSBY V. NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL [Syllabus] 1. Whether economic sanctions against Burma enacted by Congress in 1996-- three months after enactment of the Massachusetts Burma Law-- implicitly permit, or preempt, state and local selective purchasing laws regarding Burma. 2. Whether selective purchasing law such as the Massachusetts Burma Law represent ""market participation,"" not regulation, and are therefore exempt from claims based on the Foreign Commerce Clause and the foreign affairs power of the federal government. 3. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. 4. Whether selective purchasing laws such as the Massachusetts Burma Law discriminate against foreign commerce in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause."
	FREIGHTLINER CORP. V. MYRICK, 514 U.S. 280 (1995). [Syllabus]
	C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS [Syllabus] Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ZICHERMAN V. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. LTD., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) [Syllabus]
	RING V. ARIZONA [Syllabus] Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, is irreconcilable with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and is, accordingly, overruled to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, see 497 U. S., at 647-649. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 494, n. 19, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR V. MORTIER, 501 U.S. 597 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
	CLINGMAN V. BEAVER [Syllabus]
	FERNANDEZ-VARGAS V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Syllabus] Whether a state law requiring a Boy Scout Troop to appoint an avowed homosexual and gray rights activist as an Assistant Scoutmaster responsible for communicating Boy Scouting's moral values to youth members abridges First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association."
	SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GEORGIA V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BARNETT BANK OF MARION COUNTY, N. A. V. NELSON, FLORIDA INS. COMM'R, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) [Syllabus]
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CARTER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
	[Syllabus]
	EWING V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
	REGINA COLLEGE V. RUSSELL, 499 U.S. 225 [Syllabus]
	BOGGS V. BOGGS, 520 U.S. 833 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. WILANDER, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	JACOBSON V. UNITED STATES, 503 U.S. 540 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS V. TRAVELERS, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA BANKSHARES, INC. V. SANDBERG, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	BELL V. CONE [Syllabus] Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	HARTFORD FIRE INS. V. CALIFORNIA, 509 U.S. 764 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FOSTER V. LOVE, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CLARK V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY [Syllabus]
	ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
	NIXON V. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE [Syllabus] Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause.
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	BURDICK V. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) [Syllabus]
	BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE, 112 S. CT. 2727, 120 L. ED. 2D 575 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LOCKE [Syllabus] Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CASPARI V. BOHLEN, 510 U.S. 383 (1994). [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORP.V. GARRIS [Syllabus] The general maritime cause of action recognized in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 374, 409__for dealth caused by violation of maritime duties__is available for the negligent breach of a maritime dutry of care.
	PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY V. WASHINGTON DEP'T OF ECOLOGY, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) [Syllabus]
	ASTORIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION V. SOLIMINO, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	PEGRAM V. HERDRICH [Syllabus] Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	NEW YORK V. FERC [Syllabus] FERC did not exceed its jurisdiction when it required electric utilities that "unbundle"-i.e., separate-transmission costs from electricity costs when billing their retail consumers to transmit competitors' electricity over their lines on the same terms that the utilities apply to their own transmissions; and FERC's decision not to impose that requirement on utilities that offer only "bundled" retail sales was a permissible policy choice.
	FRANCHISE TAX BD. OF CAL. V. HYATT [Syllabus] A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES  V.  UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Because the enactment of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 qualified as a repudiation, rather than a present breach, of the immediate-prepayment provision of petitioners' loan agreements with the Farmers Home Administration, breach would occur, and 28 U. S. C. §2501's six-year limitations period would commence to run, when a borrower tenders prepayment and the Government then dishonors its obligation to accept the tender and release its control over use of the property securing the loan.
	CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS [Syllabus] Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
	WIGGINS V. SMITH [Syllabus] Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
	VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	LAWRENCE V. TEXAS [Syllabus] 1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
	ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORP. V. RASH ET UX., 117 S.CT. 1879, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	ITEL CONTAINERS INT'L V. HUDDLESTON, 507 U.S. 60 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN V. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL., 517 U.S. 1 (1996). [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. FORDICE, 520 U.S. 273 (1997). [Syllabus]
	FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. [Syllabus] Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
	PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE V. TULANE ED. FUND, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 503 U.S. 569 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
	UNITED STATES V. SHABANI, 115 S. CT. 382, 130 L. ED. 2D 225 (1994). [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	JOHNSON V. DEGRANDY, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) [Syllabus]
	ZADVYDAS V. DAVIS [Syllabus] The post-removal-period detention statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, implicitly limits an alien's detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention; the application of that limitation is subject to federal court review.
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	WISCONSIN DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVS.V. BLUMER [Syllabus] The Wisconsin Medicaid statute's "income-first" prescription requiring that potential income transfers from an institutionalized spouse to her spouse living at home be considered in determining whether to increase the latter's "Community Spouse Resource Allowance" is a permissible interpretation of the federal Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.
	POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
	SIMMONS V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 512 U.S. 154 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. NRA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND, 115 S. CT. 537, 130 (1994) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether , in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988), Section 844(I) applies to the arson of a private residence: and if so, whether its application to the private residence in the present case is constitutional."
	DASTAR CORP. V. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOXFILM CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Does the Lanham Act protect creative works form uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer confusion? 2. May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HALBERT V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABISBUYERS’ COOPERATIVE [Syllabus] There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana.
	GILMER V. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLEVELAND INDIANSBASEBALL CO. [Syllabus] Back wages are subject to FICA and FUTA taxes by reference to the year the wages are in fact paid.
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CHAPMAN V. UNITED STATES, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC. [Syllabus] The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
	LANKFORD V. IDAHO, 500 U.S. 110 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Syllabus]
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	DENNIS V. HIGGINS, 498 U.S. 439 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. GEORGIA STATE BD. OFEQUALIZATION [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. FANKELL, 520 U.S. 911 (1997). [Syllabus]
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	NASA V. FLRA [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"
	NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 284 (1996). [Syllabus]
	STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. ROBBINS [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
	DENTON V. HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). [Syllabus]
	MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [Syllabus]